AMD Ryzen 7 9700X

[RandallFlagg]

You didn't even read my post. I CLEARLY asked about the THREE apps that use 20-25 W.
That's so much lower than the total system idle consumption of 80 W (I know that's before power conversion where some loss occurs). If the CPU is using 20-25 W, what is using the remaining 55-60 W? Is it all the other components in the system?

If so, then I don't really see how a difference of 22 W is relevant. I counted the cost of electricity in my country (where the average income is 3x lower compared to the west). At 12 hours every single day it comes to about $2 per month. In the grand scheme of the total power consumption in my house, it's basically nothing.

The chart from the video shows energy consumption of ~60 kWh per year. That's $15 over here, so even cutting it in half saves just $7.5 per year. I mean sure, one extra pizza per year sounds nice.

It's motherboard, peripherals. AMD chipsets and CPUs tend to have much higher idle consumption than Intel parts. GPUs do as well.

And I agree on the usefulness of power efficiency metrics on desktop PCs anyway. Anyone who puts pencil to paper will quickly find all these little power usage differences between any of these chips under virtually any scenario doesn't amount to squat.

Most of these power and efficiency discussions are a red herring.

 

[blueice]

I would say lower power consumption is only a consideration for me in terms of lower heat when I am encoding movies for my Plex server in 5-8 hour batches in the summer.

 

[Nhonho]

AMD should anticipate the launch of the Ryzen 11000 to increase its sales.

 

[ViperXZ]

Interesting findings about power efficiency and useful TDP. While other websites argued the 65W TDP is too low TPU concluded it’s enough and the smart choice, I agree with this. Anyway, I guess the reviews need to be remade as software bugs probably diminished its performance compared to 7700X etc.

 

[blueice]

Interesting findings about power efficiency and useful TDP. While other websites argued the 65W TDP is too low TPU concluded it’s enough and the smart choice, I agree with this. Anyway, I guess the reviews need to be remade as software bugs probably diminished its performance compared to 7700X etc.

The same “bug” affects the 7700x the same way. So the improvement remain minimal.

 

[ViperXZ]

The same “bug” affects the 7700x the same way. So the improvement remain minimal.

Not quite. Zen 5 is affected by a admin bug that increases perf on Zen 5 more than on any other arch due to changes how Zen 5 works.

 

[blueice]

Not quite. Zen 5 is affected by a admin bug that increases perf on Zen 5 more than on any other arch due to changes how Zen 5 works.

And so is Zen 4. Steve mentioned it in Hardware Unboxed’s video and X posts. As well as their article on it on Techspot. The difference of the effect on Zen4 to 5 is minimal.

 

[ViperXZ]

And so is Zen 4. Steve mentioned it in Hardware Unboxed’s video and X posts. As well as their article on it on Techspot. The difference of the effect on Zen4 to 5 is minimal.

You have no point. The meaning of my post was that another review is probably needed after this bug is fixed or with admin activated. This is still true, doesnt matter if this is about Zen 4 as well.

 

[blueice]

You have no point. The meaning of my post was that another review is probably needed after this bug is fixed or with admin activated. This is still true, doesnt matter if this is about Zen 4 as well.

My point is it doesn’t change the value proposition which is the sticking point for most people with this chip. As someone in the market for a new CPU I was hoping the 9700x would work for me. I would also love for there to be some fix that improves gaming performance as I have a split use case. I agree a new review of gaming performance would be in order, but as it affects some competitive products similarly it doesn’t give me much hope that paying that much more would benefit gaming performance in comparison. This “bug” hasn’t even been tested on Intel machines, at least last I checked. I just don’t think it’s the magic bullet that changes the position of Zen5, that’s all. I’m all for better performance for Zen 5 and a reevaluation if that boost comes.

 

[ViperXZ]

I just don’t think it’s the magic bullet that changes the position of Zen5,

No, but it helps. For gamers you should either go for the 7800X3D or wait for the new X3Ds, this one doesn’t make much sense, it’s just useful to people who are working / need the best AVX512 otherwise a Zen 4 would do as well and is cheaper. This is the only thing really going for Zen 5 right now. X3D will change that of course.

 

[HD64G]

From the latest Wendell inquiry posted. If that isn't a proof of windows 11 being a mess and that AMD rushed to launch Zen5 cpus, I don't know what to suppose anymore. Btw, since win10 is much better that the until now public win11 version (23H2), why MS messed up so much the cpu performance for win11 and AMD? Over 10% difference in FPS between OS version is huge. I wonder when that difference was introduced, since when win11 arrived the reviews showed no big diff with win10.

 

[blueice]

View attachment 360558
From the latest Wendell inquiry posted. If that isn't a proof of windows 11 being a mess and that AMD rushed to launch Zen5 cpus, I don't know what to suppose anymore. Btw, since win10 is much better that the until now public win11 version (23H2), why MS messed up so much the cpu performance for win11 and AMD? Over 10% difference in FPS between OS version is huge. I wonder when that difference was introduced, since when win11 arrived the reviews showed no big diff with win10.

The thing I would want to see, and Wendell noted it in the video, is the uplift for the 7700x from the new Windows update. Because even though there is no benefit to disabling software virtualization for the 7700x, Steve at Hardware Unboxed saw an uplift from the system administrator mode and also hinted that his big test of the windows insider build showed similar uplift for it.

 

[HD64G]

Steve from HU found those results (the video here)

So, what's up MS? You ruined AMD CPUs' performance for a longtime. There might be a reason for that kind of "sabotage". What was that reason?

 

[chrcoluk]

So, what's up MS? You ruined AMD CPUs' performance for a longtime. There might be a reason for that kind of "sabotage". What was that reason?

Thats a very strange interpretation, AMD will be the one's submitting code update's for MS to implement in the OS. The long time delay will be down to AMD.

 

[Wasteland]

Interested to see if those gains hold for the 7800x3d. If so, then Intel will be BTFO to a degree we haven't seen in decades--though of course, AMD will still have bungled their advantage to an equally clownish degree. Nothing about these benchmark numbers suggests that Zen 5 is a good buy, for example, and AMD's cringey butthurt attempts at damage control on that subject will echo for quite some time to come.

Can't say the current CPU market is boring to watch, though!

 

[HD64G]

Thats a very strange interpretation, AMD will be the one's submitting code update's for MS to implement in the OS. The long time delay will be down to AMD.

I thought MS engineers alone make the software for windows to work well with the hardware. Only chipset drivers and motherboard firmware are supposed to be the CPU manufacturer's responsibility. And this preview version of win11 exists for months now (helps several gens of Ryzen cpus) but MS didn't applied in public version until to day although the 9000 Ryzen series would arrive in early August.

 

[THU31]

I thought MS engineers alone make the software for windows to work well with the hardware.

So new hardware comes out and software developers are supposed to magically know how to make it run optimally? I would think it's the hardware maker's obligation to provide all the necessary information and support to make sure the devs can optimize the software.
If this affects prior generations of Zen CPUs, did AMD and Microsoft know about it? Did they try to do anything about it? AMD tried but Microsoft didn't care? If that was the case, they should've said something. Putting all the blame on Microsoft in this situation seems kind of dumb.

 

[HD64G]

So new hardware comes out and software developers are supposed to magically know how to make it run optimally? I would think it's the hardware maker's obligation to provide all the necessary information and support to make sure the devs can optimize the software.
If this affects prior generations of Zen CPUs, did AMD and Microsoft know about it? Did they try to do anything about it? AMD tried but Microsoft didn't care? If that was the case, they should've said something. Putting all the blame on Microsoft in this situation seems kind of dumb.

So, AMD is responsible for optimization in XBox and PS also? I understand that they only provide the hardware, the firmware and chipset drivers. Maybe a software engineer is around and willing to tell us who is most correct between us but until then, we can agree to disagree.

 

[Vincero]

It works both ways - whilst Intel/AMD will provide MS with all the information they could need / want there's no guarantee how effectively it will be used (in a purely performance focused approach). Even if AMD/Intel provided detailed information about instruction clock cycle usage, optimal caching usage, etc., there is already a massive existing body of work that has set a framework about how things work and have worked well for some time - spending money on a team of people to go through this is probably not high on their agenda.... EXCEPT when open source linux starts bitchslapping it in testing.
On the flip-side I suspect Intel/AMD are probably part of the priviledged few who have access to Windows kernel source code which they can work on themselves to better optimise things, so delivery of some of those optimisations would fall in to their own hands.

An example case in point would the fact that there is/was Intel compilers for Visual Studio which will optimise code better than that offered by Microsoft's default compilation engine methods.
Whilst it's possible this may be making use of some undocumented methods, the most likely possibility is that MS is using coding methods tweaked for things like memory usage and other resource considerations whereas the Intel compilers might be push more power consuming or optimised instruction / cache routines for certain architectures.

 

[THU31]

So, AMD is responsible for optimization in XBox and PS also? I understand that they only provide the hardware, the firmware and chipset drivers. Maybe a software engineer is around and willing to tell us who is most correct between us but until then, we can agree to disagree.

Optimization of what? Games or the OS? Console has fixed hardware, the OS is written specifically for it, and yes, the hardware maker should work with with the OS maker to make sure everything is properly utilized. They should work on the SDK as well, which is what is provided to game developers.

We've seen multiple instances where Sony and Microsoft worked with developers to improve certain things. One of the most notable examples is Baldur's Gate 3, where the devs had major issues getting local co-op to work on Xbox consoles (especially Series S).

And it's the same in the PC space with sponsored games, where AMD and NVIDIA offer help during development.
And when Intel came out with their hybrid architecture, there were tons of issues with DRM and scheduling. It wasn't just Microsoft's responsibility to fix issues nobody had ever seen before.

You can't just be like "here's some new hardware, go figure it out". I'd go as far as to say Microsoft doesn't benefit from squeezing extra performance out of specific hardware. But the hardware maker definitely does, which puts the main responsibility on them.
Both the hardware and the software maker are obligated to make sure everything runs as intended. So I'll say it again, putting blame on just one of them is stupid.

 

[HD64G]

Optimization of what? Games or the OS? Console has fixed hardware, the OS is written specifically for it, and yes, the hardware maker should work with with the OS maker to make sure everything is properly utilized. They should work on the SDK as well, which is what is provided to game developers.

We've seen multiple instances where Sony and Microsoft worked with developers to improve certain things. One of the most notable examples is Baldur's Gate 3, where the devs had major issues getting local co-op to work on Xbox consoles (especially Series S).

And it's the same in the PC space with sponsored games, where AMD and NVIDIA offer help during development.
And when Intel came out with their hybrid architecture, there were tons of issues with DRM and scheduling. It wasn't just Microsoft's responsibility to fix issues nobody had ever seen before.

You can't just be like "here's some new hardware, go figure it out". I'd go as far as to say Microsoft doesn't benefit from squeezing extra performance out of specific hardware. But the hardware maker definitely does, which puts the main responsibility on them.
Both the hardware and the software maker are obligated to make sure everything runs as intended. So I'll say it again, putting blame on just one of them is stupid.

Let me rephrase it: Windows OS aren't open sourse and thus, none other than MS can even touch it. Only drivers are their responsibility. Prove me wrong. The collaboration ends where the windows code starts. And AMD themselves didn't say that they helped MS make that patch that corrects the performance of their CPUs in windows or MS informed us about how that fix was made. Until then, opinions, assumptions and speculation only.

 

[THU31]

Let me rephrase it: Windows OS aren't open sourse and thus, none other than MS can even touch it. Only drivers are their responsibility. Prove me wrong. The collaboration ends where the windows code starts. And AMD themselves didn't say that they helped MS make that patch that corrects the performance of their CPUs in windows or MS informed us about how that fix was made. Until then, opinions, assumptions and speculation only.

It's not about "touching it", it's about telling Microsoft what to change. Intel doesn't seem to benefit from these changes (although 1 game in HUB's test did), they are mainly AMD-specific, so how is Microsoft supposed to figure it out? Should they mess with every single OS setting to see how it affects performance? I don't think so. AMD designed the CPU, and they're supposed to provide information on what needs to be done for it to run optimally, and then Microsoft needs to do it (assuming it doesn't compromise security, like using a system admin account would).

 

[HD64G]

It's not about "touching it", it's about telling Microsoft what to change. Intel doesn't seem to benefit from these changes (although 1 game in HUB's test did), they are mainly AMD-specific, so how is Microsoft supposed to figure it out? Should they mess with every single OS setting to see how it affects performance? I don't think so. AMD designed the CPU, and they're supposed to provide information on what needs to be done for it to run optimally, and then Microsoft needs to do it (assuming it doesn't compromise security, like using a system admin account would).

How to tell MS what to do to get more performance if you don't have the right to access their code? It is almost the same as most car makers today that don't allow engineers other than the official ones to read the car's cpu. And Linux is the proof of that since it got much better for Ryzen compared to Intel just because AMD has full access to the kernel and thus they can "play" with it finding a great balance between performance, power draw, latency, etc. MS didn't make their job well until recently, they are very late in fixing that and we can only speculate why until AMD or MS tells us something specific about.

 

[chrcoluk]

I thought MS engineers alone make the software for windows to work well with the hardware. Only chipset drivers and motherboard firmware are supposed to be the CPU manufacturer's responsibility. And this preview version of win11 exists for months now (helps several gens of Ryzen cpus) but MS didn't applied in public version until to day although the 9000 Ryzen series would arrive in early August.

Of course not, they would need to reverse engineer stuff.

Intel thread director as an example isnt an addon driver, its part of Windows 11 and supplied by Intel developers.

Of course Microsoft control the release schedule for turning preview into public release.

 

[HD64G]

Of course not, they would need to reverse engineer stuff.

Intel thread director as an example isnt an addon driver, its part of Windows 11 and supplied by Intel developers.

Of course Microsoft control the release schedule for turning preview into public release.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000091284/processors.html

Official word from Intel says that the AL thread director is embedded in the CPU. So, this is a thing MS has nothing to do with.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/how-intel-thread-director-marries-alder-lake-windows-11/

Even more details above. Intel makes the scheduler in the CPU, collaborates with MS to help them make their part work better with their CPUs. They don't mention to even touch the OS though.

And why MS needed to reverse engineer anything? No change in the basic cpu arch happened since Zen3. They are supposed to try improving performance by altering parameters of the OS in the way the CPU threads work with the software's demands. Just needs some time and effort. They had years of time for sure since Zen3. Did they try hard though? If they did, the increase in performance just by one update wouldn't be as huge as this!